Ahead of the pronouncement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on whether the February 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo was admissible in international law, both Pristina and Belgrade were seeking to spin the story – each predicting victory for itself.

Each side was rallying its allies. Four days before the July 22 announcement by the court, Kosovo prime minister Hashim Thaci was in the United States, meeting vice president Joe Biden, the state department, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and members of the US congress.

Earlier, Thaci had taken part in a meeting led by Kosovo president Fatmir Sejdiu with ambassadors of the Quint states (the US, Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Italy) to discuss how Pristina would react to the court ruling.

Also at this meeting was Kosovo foreign minister Skender Hyseni, who told the media in Pristina that he could not see the court would rule "against the freedom of one nation". Separately, Sejdiu said – ahead of the opinion being announced – that he did not want to prejudge what the court would say but "the decision about the independence of Kosovo cannot be turned backwards".

This latter point was bound to be of relevance, no matter what the court said. Bulgaria was among those that took the position, ahead of the ICJ announcement, that any talk of reopening the Kosovo status issue was a "non-issue" because Sofia, like the majority of European Union states, had recognised Kosovo as independent. At the same time, Bulgaria would encourage talks between Belgrade and Pristina given that this would be important to the two countries’ European futures.

Kosovo media reported Daniel Serwer of the US-based Institute for Peace as saying that the ICJ opinion would not change the basic fact of the independence of Kosovo.

Hyseni told journalists that he had been advised by representatives of no less than 35 countries that after the ICJ announcement, they would announce that they were recognising Kosovo. While 22 out of 27 EU states recognise Kosovo, along with the US and other countries around the world, less than half of the UN member states had by the beginning of July 2010 deemed the country to be independent.
 
In Belgrade
Serbia’s government sent repeated signals that it would not back down on its rejection of Kosovo’s independence as illegal, and was preparing to reinvigorate its campaign after the ICJ announcement. It also had domestic political reasons for doing so, the government having come under fire from opposition parties for dealing with the Kosovo issue inadequately; ahead of the court ruling, there were calls for it to be followed by a special sitting of parliament.

In Belgrade, several top figures insisted that the ICJ would find in favour of Serbia, which initiated the court case by securing a UN General Assembly resolution referring the matter to the court.

Serbian deputy prime minister Bozidar Djelic said ahead of the ruling that he expected that the court would find in Serbia’s favour. Local media quoted him as telling state broadcaster RTS that fake celebrations were being prepared in Pristina, with the help of various advertising agencies.

"They are preparing celebrations in an effort to convince the world public that they have won, but they will not win, the arguments of Serbia are much stronger," he said on July 19, according to a report by Serbian news website B92.

Serbia’s reaction to the ICJ announcement was expected to include an attempt to raise the issue anew in the UN General Assembly and to seek to reopen status negotiations.

The UN Security Council is scheduled to discuss Kosovo in August. Serbia has let it be known that it is encouraged that at this time, its ally Russia will be presiding over the council. WithChina, Russia has kept the Security Council from recognising Kosovo’s independence.

Ahead of the ICJ ruling, which was scheduled for release after this issue of The Sofia Echo went to press, there were expectations that the court would seek to avoid setting precedents that could be used by would-be secessionist states elsewhere on the globe.

It was clear, however, that whatever the court said – however generally, vaguely or specifically it expressed its opinion – both sides would continue their campaign.

"There is no turning back," Serbian foreign minister Vuk Jeremic said on July 18. It was not difficult to imagine his counterpart Hyseni using precisely the same phrase.